Acee: 

 

Top of the morning on a fine snowy day. 

 

<WG Chair hat on> 

You should also look at section 2.4.3 as well as section 7.2.1.  Can you 
suggest what you would like to see covered in section 7.2.1?  What use case are 
you trying to solve?   

 

None of the models described by your email are working drafts ( 
draft-li-rtgwg-utunnel-yang,  draft-li-rtgwg-tunnel-policy-yang, 
draft-wwz-netmod-yang-tunnel-cfg, draft-zheng-intarea-gre-yang, 
draft-liu-intarea-gre-tunnel-yang, and draft-liu-intarea-ipipv4-tunnel-yang). 

The I2RS RIB model and the tunnels have been in discussion since 2013.  Stating 
I2RS should change document which have gone to WG LC to follow the work of 
individual drafts is not a reasonable request. 

 

Without further clarification of an error case your concerned about, or a 
specific concern for a I2RS use case, or WG approved architectural document 
with a specific set of design principles you are concerned about, I cannot 
re-open a completed WG LC for the I2RS Information Model.   The I2RS RIB Data 
Model follows the I2RS Informational Model.    

 

I will host a design team for those who I2RS Members to comment on the 
incomplete routing architecture for yang models to suggest solutions for the 
routing architecture.  I2RS members should contact me off-list if you wish to 
participate.  

<WG Hat off> 

 

Cheerily, 

 

Sue 

 

From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 8:35 AM
To: Susan Hares; [email protected]
Cc: 'Alia Atlas'; 'Jeffrey Haas'; 'Jeff Tantsura'
Subject: Re: [i2rs] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

 

From: Susan Hares < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>

Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 9:57 PM
To: Acee Lindem <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: Alia Atlas <[email protected]>, Jeff Haas <[email protected]>, Jeff Tantsura 
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [i2rs] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

 

Acee: 

 

Is your input individual input or input from the routing architecture for yang 
models?

 

Individual. 

 

 

 

<I2RS chair hat on> 

The routing architecture for yang models is incomplete without the 
consideration of the I2RS ephemeral state and I2RS architecture.  Asking the 
I2RS WG to change a document that is in WG LC based on an incomplete 
architectural document is not reasonable.  

 

My comment with respect to tunnel provisioning is not based on any architecture 
document. 

 

An alignment between  
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg/> 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg/ without the 
consideration of the I2RS ephemeral state is an incomplete alignment and a 
problematic  approach for I2RS WG’s efforts.   

 

I2RS models should augment the base models with ephemeral state. 

 

 

In a volunteer organization, each person has the right to makes choices in what 
they have time to do.   If you do not have bandwidth to provide an adequate 
routing architecture for yang models that considers ephemeral state or its 
needs, that is your choice.  Unless you have a concrete proposal for the 
ephemeral state that covers I2RS RIB and  
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg/> 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg/, the I2RS WG LC 
will be closed after 2 week (11/23 – 12/7) WG review of the in 
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt.    

 

We have proposed tunnel models, draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg is not meant to 
supplant them. BTW, we don’t plan to update 
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt. Updates based on I2RS will be in the a 
next-hop augmentation draft that extends draft-ietf-netmod-rtg-cfg. 

 

Sue – Ace did you mean draft-ietf-nemod-routing-config in the previous 
sentence.  Your proposed tunnel models are individual drafts.   

 

 

 

Please remember that the I2RS RIB model has two parts:  I2RS Informational 
Model and I2RS Data Model.  The I2RS Informational Model and the I2RS Data 
Model have descriptions on the soft tunnel provisioning as mechanisms.  
Questions at this point must demonstrate a knowledge of these documents or 
suggest specific changes to the documents.   If you wish to raise the following 
questions, please do this in light of specific sections that include both the 
I2RS Informational Model, the I2RS Data Model, and I2RS architecture. 

 

a)      I2RS tunnels must include additions beyond encapsulation, 

b)      Why the I2RS Informational Model and the I2RS Data Model do not provide 
the soft tunnel provisioning or describe the specifics of this provision?  

 

The I2RS Informational Model has examples for these tunnels.  You are welcome 
to make proposal for specific changes to the I2RS Informational Model or the 
I2RS Data Model.  The I2RS Informational Model has completed WG LC so the bar 
for substantive comments is high.

 

I don’t believe this excerpt from the RIB information models describes soft 
tunnel provisioning for each of the tunnels proposed in the RIB data model:

 

7.2.1.  Tunnel nexthops

 

   A tunnel nexthop points to a tunnel of some kind.  Traffic that goes

   over the tunnel gets encapsulated with the tunnel encap.  Tunnel

   nexthops are useful for abstracting out details of the network, by

   having the traffic seamlessly route between network edges.  At the

   end of a tunnel, the tunnel will get decapsulated.  Thus the grammar

   supports two kinds of operations, one for encap and another for

   decap.

 

Acee 

 

 

    

<I2RS chair hat off> 

 

Cheers, 

 

Sue Hares 

 

From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee)
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 7:30 PM
To: Susan Hares; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

 

Sue, 

 

From: i2rs <[email protected]> on behalf of Susan Hares <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:45 PM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: [i2rs] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

 

Resending to I2RS WG. 

 

From: Susan Hares [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 5:33 PM
To: 'Jeff Tantsura'; 'Acee Lindem (acee)'; 'Mach Chen'; '[email protected]'
Cc: 'Jeffrey Haas'; 'Alia Atlas'; 'Benoit Claise (bclaise)'
Subject: RE: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

 

Jeff and Acee: 

 

Your suggested change goes against the WG adopted RIB Information draft that 
has been discussed for over 2 years.  The informational draft has been through 
WG LC and you did not make any suggestions or comments during the WG LC.  Any 
change of this matter is not simply something you indicate to the authors, but 
needs to be discussed on the WG as a direction change for the RIB IM/DM models.

 

Independent of the I2RS efforts, milestones, and processes, I think we need to 
address whether provisioning all these tunnels via RIB installation is  
appropriate and, additionally, consistent with other WG YANG models. In many 
cases, it would seem there are tunnel attributes other than the encaps that 
need to be provisioned. At a minimum, I think you’d need to either reference an 
RFC describing soft tunnel provisioning or describe the specifics of this 
provisioning. 

 

 

Prior to moving this change through WG adoption cycle, the routing 
architectural team needs to have: a) concrete proposal for the ephemeral state 
that covers I2RS RIB and 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg/  and  b) I 
requested this input of Acee Lindem as a representative of the routing 
architecture team.   

 

The  identification of this problem with tunnel provisioning is a direct 
outcome of this effort. 

 

 

 

I will be glad to work with you on a concrete proposal that you can send to the 
email list and present at the I2RS interim meeting on 12/16/2015 (10-11:30am 
ET).

 

I will continue to work on ietf-routing alignment but don’t have the bandwidth 
for the above. 

 

Acee 

 

 

 

 

 

 Sue Hares 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 4:27 PM
To: Acee Lindem (acee); Mach Chen; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

 

Hi Mach,

 

I agree with Acee’s comments and would encourage you to use generic/existing 
tunnel model(s), please see comments provided during RTGWG meeting in Yokohama.

There are already too many, we need to rationalize this work.

 

This is what has been discussed in Yokohama, Robin presented

 

-- draft-li-rtgwg-utunnel-yang

   -- draft-li-rtgwg-tunnel-policy-yang

   -- draft-wwz-netmod-yang-tunnel-cfg

   -- draft-zheng-intarea-gre-yang

   -- draft-liu-intarea-gre-tunnel-yang

   -- draft-liu-intarea-ipipv4-tunnel-yang

 

Cheers,

Jeff

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 11/23/15, 11:56, "i2rs on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)" < 
<mailto:[email protected]%20on%20behalf%20of%[email protected]> 
[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

 

>Hi Mach,

> 

>I’m looking at draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt and it still 

>includes all the tunnel encaps. I know you received several comments 

>that those should be in the tunnel model(s) and this I2RS RIB model 

>should merely reference an imported tunnel abstraction. How are you 

>going to address this? It seemed that the consensus (and an opinion 

>that I share) was that this model should not attempt to generically 

>created tunnels via RIB/FIB entries.

>Thanks,

>Acee

> 

>On 11/23/15, 2:23 AM, "i2rs on behalf of Mach Chen" 

>< <mailto:[email protected]%20on%20behalf%20of%[email protected]> 
>[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:

> 

>>Hi,

>> 

>>We just uploaded an update that addresses the comments received 

>>(include online and offline) recently. Please review the draft and comment!

>> 

>>Thanks,

>>Mach

>> 

>>> -----Original Message-----

>>> From: i2rs [ <mailto:[email protected]> mailto:[email protected]] 
>>> On Behalf Of 

>>> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

>>> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 3:16 PM

>>> To:  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

>>> Cc:  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

>>> Subject: [i2rs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

>>> 

>>> 

>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 

>>>directories.

>>>  This draft is a work item of the Interface to the Routing System 

>>>Working Group  of the IETF.

>>> 

>>>         Title           : A YANG Data Model for Routing Information Base

>>> (RIB)

>>>         Authors         : Lixing Wang

>>>                           Hariharan Ananthakrishnan

>>>                           Mach(Guoyi) Chen

>>>                           Amit Dass

>>>                           Sriganesh Kini

>>>                           Nitin Bahadur

>>>        Filename        : draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04.txt

>>>        Pages           : 65

>>>        Date            : 2015-11-22

>>> 

>>> Abstract:

>>>    This document defines a YANG data model for Routing Information Base

>>>    (RIB) that aligns with the I2RS RIB information model.

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:

>>>  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model/> 
>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model/

>>> 

>>> There's also a htmlized version available at:

>>>  <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04> 
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04

>>> 

>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:

>>>  <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04> 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-04

>>> 

>>> 

>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 

>>>submission  until the htmlized version and diff are available at 

>>>tools.ietf.org.

>>> 

>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:

>>>  <ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

>>> 

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> i2rs mailing list

>>>  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

>>>  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs> 
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

>> 

>>_______________________________________________

>>i2rs mailing list

>> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

>> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

> 

>_______________________________________________

>i2rs mailing list

> <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

_______________________________________________

i2rs mailing list

 <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Reply via email to